Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

PromQL may be inaccurate with higher quantiles #8076

Closed
CalvinNeo opened this issue Sep 11, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #8084 or #8446
Closed

PromQL may be inaccurate with higher quantiles #8076

CalvinNeo opened this issue Sep 11, 2023 · 1 comment · Fixed by #8084 or #8446

Comments

@CalvinNeo
Copy link
Member

Bug Report

Please answer these questions before submitting your issue. Thanks!

See m3db/m3#3706

73e99b33-eea0-43ef-af8e-bf16250d2f30

b8aa9e83-6be9-4e83-8ecc-7cf7a8e69121

Use something like

histogram_quantile(1.0, sum(round(1000000000*rate(xxx{}[5m]))) by (le) / 1000000000)

When using histogram_quantile 1.0 with sum(rate)

1. Minimal reproduce step (Required)

2. What did you expect to see? (Required)

3. What did you see instead (Required)

4. What is your TiFlash version? (Required)

@CalvinNeo
Copy link
Member Author

tiflash_raft_wait_index_duration_seconds_bucket
tiflash_raft_read_index_duration_seconds_bucket
tiflash_raft_apply_write_command_duration_seconds_bucket
tiflash_raft_eager_gc_duration_seconds_bucket
tiflash_raft_upstream_latency_bucket
tiflash_storage_checkpoint_seconds_bucket
tiflash_pipeline_task_execute_max_time_seconds_per_round_bucket
tiflash_storage_io_limiter_pending_seconds_bucket
tiflash_storage_page_write_duration_seconds_bucket
tiflash_storage_page_gc_duration_seconds_bucket

ti-chi-bot bot pushed a commit that referenced this issue Sep 13, 2023
This issue was closed.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment